Microsoft Corporation v. DSD Solutions Inc., a California corporation et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 8/11/16 ORDERING that the Court hereby adopts the parties' stipulation as its order. Judge Gregory G. Hollows has been randomly assigned to conduct a settlement conference in this cas e. Despite the parties' general request for a November status conference date, the Court declines to set that conference now. Instead, not later than seven (7) days following the date that this order is electronically filed, Counsel are directe d to contact Judge Hollows chambers to schedule that conference directly. Not later than one week prior to the settlement conference, counsel for each party shall submit to the chambers of Judge Hollows a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Audra M Mori, Bar No. 162850
[e-mail]
Katherine M. Dugdale, Bar No. 168014
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310.788.3399
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Stephen D. Collins, Bar No. 277248
[e-mail]
Curtis R. Tingley, Bar No. 112322
[e-mail]
Kevin W. Isaacson, Bar No. 281067
[e-mail]
TINGLEY LAW GROUP, PC
10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 430
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone:
408.283.7000
Facsimile:
408.283.7010
Attorneys for Defendants
DSD SOLUTIONS INC. d/b/a DESTINED
DESIGN and DUY L. PAN

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
DSD SOLUTIONS INC., a California
corporation d/b/a DESTINED DESIGN;
DUY L. PAN, an individual; and DOES 15,
Defendants.

26
27
28
131990846.4

Case No. 15-cv-01690-MCE-CKD

JOINT REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AND STIPULATION TO
CONTINUE DEADLINES; ORDER

1

Plaintiff MICROSOFT CORPORATION (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Defendants DSD

2

SOLUTIONS INC. and DUY L. PAN (hereinafter “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants are

3

hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record,

4

stipulate and jointly request (1) that a settlement conference be scheduled to take place in or about

5

November 2016 in this case and (2) that the existing deadlines in this case be extended in order

6

for the settlement conference to be meaningful.

7

The Parties have engaged in extensive written discovery and taken the deposition of the

8

30(b)(6) witness for DSD SOLUTIONS, INC. The Parties have additional depositions to

9

conduct, including numerous depositions of third parties in Pennsylvania and the 30(b)(6) witness

10

of Plaintiff. However, the Parties have been and continue to be interested in discussing settlement

11

of this matter.

12

Previously, in order to give the Defendants time to resolve a dispute with their insurer and

13

to participate in alternative dispute resolution, the Parties received an extension to do certain

14

depositions approximately two months after the discovery cutoff and an extension of

15

approximately three weeks to the dispositive motion hearing cut-off date. (Dkt. Nos. 18 and 22.)

16

However, they have not previously requested an extension of the Pretrial Conference or Trial

17

dates in this matter.

18

The Parties now stipulate and jointly request that a settlement conference be set before a

19

magistrate judge1 no later than December 1 of this year. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(a), the

20

Parties stipulate that in order to make the settlement conference meaningful, it should take place

21

prior to the time that they must incur the costs of numerous depositions across the country and

22

summary judgment motions, so that they may put their resources and time toward settlement.

23

Currently, the deadline to conduct certain depositions is September 9, 2016 (Dkt. No. 22) and the

24

time to file a summary judgment is on or about September 22, 2016. (See, Dkt. No. 18 re:

25
Previously, the parties had agreed to participate in a private mediation prior to the
discovery cutoff. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 18.) Defendants have suggested a settlement conference
instead of a mediation, so that they may put resources that would be spent on a mediation toward
settlement. The parties decline to waive disqualification, pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), of the
assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge, such that the requested settlement conference will take place
before a different judge.
1

26
27
28

131990846.4

-1-

1

hearing cutoff date of November 18, 2016.) The parties stipulate and jointly request that these

2

deadlines be extended by three to four months in order to give them time to participate in a

3

meaningful settlement conference. Because Microsoft intends to file a summary judgment

4

motion, which the Court will need time to rule upon and which may impact any trial in this

5

matter, the Parties similarly jointly stipulate and request, for the first time, to continue the Pretrial

6

Conference and the Trial Date. The requested dates are as follows:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Deadline
Settlement Conference
Deadline for Deposition of Certain
Witnesses as described in the Court’s
order dated June 22, 2016 (Dkt. No.
22)
Dispositive Motion Hearing Cut-Off
Date (Dkt. No. 18)
Final Pretrial Conference Statement
Evidentiary and Procedural Motions,
Oppositions and Replies
Pretrial Conference Date
Trial

Current Date
September 9, 2016

New Date
November 2016
December 16, 2016

November 18, 2016

March 3, 2017

January 26, 2017
January 26, 2017;
February 2, 2017;
February 9, 2017
February 16, 2017
April 3, 2017

May 18, 2017
May 18, 2017;
May 25, 2017,
June 1, 2017
June 8, 2017
July 24, 2017

15
16

DATED: August 4, 2016

PERKINS COIE LLP

17
By: /s/ Audra Mori
Audra Mori

18
19

Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

20
21
22

DATED: August 4, 2016

TINGLEY LAW GROUP, PC

23

By: /s/ Stephen D. Collins
(as authorized on 8/3/2016)
Stephen D. Collins

24
25

Attorneys for Defendants
DSD Solutions Inc., dba Destined Design, and
Duy L. Pan

26
27
28
131990846.4

-2-

1
2

ORDER
The Court hereby adopts the parties’ stipulation as its order. Judge Gregory G. Hollows

3

has been randomly assigned to conduct a settlement conference in this case. Despite the parties’

4

general request for a November status conference date, the Court declines to set that conference

5

now. Instead, not later than seven (7) days following the date that this order is electronically

6

filed, Counsel are directed to contact Judge Hollows chambers to schedule that conference

7

directly.

8

Counsel is instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at the

9

settlement conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. Not later than

10

one week prior to the settlement conference, counsel for each party shall submit to the chambers

11

of Judge Hollows a Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. Such statements are neither

12

to be filed with the Clerk nor served on opposing counsel. Each party, however, shall serve

13

notice on all other parties that the statement has been submitted. The Confidential Settlement

14

Conference Statement shall not be disclosed to the trial judge.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
131990846.4

-3-